Creationists

[JakeStarkey]

koshergirl cannot elucidate a cogent, coherent argument based on the proof criteria inherent in science for either creationism or anti-evolutionism.

tis what tis.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Yes. And what hasn't already been proven, will be.

Anything else?

That's fine, but your predictions aren't based on science is what I'm saying.


Saying "later on science will prove a snake can talk" isn't based on current science.


I'm not mocking you for your beliefs, just saying you have many that aren't backed by science and in fact are the opposite of science.

Lol..so now we're only using CURRENT science? Is it your position that science is a static thing that stops right here and now?

Or that truth that hasn't been revealed yet isn't really truth UNTIL it's revealed?

The science of a couple hundred years ago told a far different story about things than the science of today tells us. So do you hold that it was still correct because that was all it revealed back then? Has the truth changed?

No, but you can't predict what future science will be and then call it science like you're doing.

There's nothing in science that would lead someone to think that later on science will prove that a snake can talk, a man can live in a whale, a man can separate sea with his hands etc etc.

And that's perfectly fine, you believe in a supernatural being (God) who's powers are outside that of which science can measure. So you have beliefs in the supernatural, that is outside the natural science world.

 

[koshergrl]

You ignore the facts and lie about the rest, so really, what is the point? I haven't seen one person, ever, provide evidence that proves that the creation of the world did not occur exactly as the bible says.

Likewise, I haven't seen a shred of evidence that proves that we are descended from anything other than men, or that we mutated from some other creature.

When you get those duckies in a row, bring them to the party. Until then, I'll continue to hold you up as an example of someone who thinks "It's smart when I make assumptions about creation based upon nothing, but when you do it, you're stupid" is some sort of scientific proof that the bible is wrong.

 

[JakeStarkey]

That is your opinion unsubstantiated by any empirical data, critical thinking, or other valid criteria, koshergirl.

Just because you believe as you do does not make it fact.

 

[koshergrl]

That's fine, but your predictions aren't based on science is what I'm saying.


Saying "later on science will prove a snake can talk" isn't based on current science.


I'm not mocking you for your beliefs, just saying you have many that aren't backed by science and in fact are the opposite of science.

Lol..so now we're only using CURRENT science? Is it your position that science is a static thing that stops right here and now?

Or that truth that hasn't been revealed yet isn't really truth UNTIL it's revealed?

The science of a couple hundred years ago told a far different story about things than the science of today tells us. So do you hold that it was still correct because that was all it revealed back then? Has the truth changed?

No, but you can't predict what future science will be and then call it science like you're doing.

There's nothing in science that would lead someone to think that later on science will prove that a snake can talk, a man can live in a whale, a man can separate sea with his hands etc etc.

And that's perfectly fine, you believe in a supernatural being (God) who's powers are outside that of which science can measure. So you have beliefs in the supernatural, that is outside the natural science world.

See, this is where you fail. Of course I can "predict". That's what a HYPOTHESIS is. A prediction based upon current information.

And there's plenty in science that would lead someone to think that the stories of the bible are true. Of course, you need to actually know the bible and the accurate translations (serpent, not snake. Big fish, not whale, and God separated the sea, not Moses....) As long as you continue to lie about what the bible says, and to lie about what I believe, you won't get a serious, committed response from me. I have to wonder why people feel like they need to lie, though, if they are so certain they're correct. It seems to me that if you are right, you wouldn't need to lie about the opposition in order to make your point.

But I know you aren't right, and I know you lie, and I know the motivation behind you isn't to speak or find the truth, it's to obfuscate, to ridicule, and to discredit. Not because you're correct, but because you hate. And that hatred comes straight from satan.

Why don't you read the story of the Fall with that in your mind? Satan is the great liar..you know how the serpent got Eve to eat of the Tree of Knowledge? He lied to her. He told her #1, it wouldn't kill her (he was lying) and #2, if she ate it, she would be as powerful as God.

So why do you lie to and about believers in order to get them to set aside their faith?

 

[Dr.Drock]

You ignore the facts and lie about the rest, so really, what is the point? I haven't seen one person, ever, provide evidence that proves that the creation of the world did not occur exactly as the bible says.

Likewise, I haven't seen a shred of evidence that proves that we are descended from anything other than men, or that we mutated from some other creature.

When you get those duckies in a row, bring them to the party. Until then, I'll continue to hold you up as an example of someone who thinks "It's smart when I make assumptions about creation based upon nothing, but when you do it, you're stupid" is some sort of scientific proof that the bible is wrong.

That's better, pretend we aren't talking about your beliefs not being backed by science and turn your attacks back on science.

You have good timing. I think you know many of your beliefs go against science and that's fine, I just don't know why you're too insecure to admit it.

YWC is the same way.

 

[Dragon]

I feel the same about you, believe me.

And that's the difference between us. On a subject that calls for thinking, you, instead, feel.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Lol..so now we're only using CURRENT science? Is it your position that science is a static thing that stops right here and now?

Or that truth that hasn't been revealed yet isn't really truth UNTIL it's revealed?

The science of a couple hundred years ago told a far different story about things than the science of today tells us. So do you hold that it was still correct because that was all it revealed back then? Has the truth changed?

No, but you can't predict what future science will be and then call it science like you're doing.

There's nothing in science that would lead someone to think that later on science will prove that a snake can talk, a man can live in a whale, a man can separate sea with his hands etc etc.

And that's perfectly fine, you believe in a supernatural being (God) who's powers are outside that of which science can measure. So you have beliefs in the supernatural, that is outside the natural science world.

See, this is where you fail. Of course I can "predict". That's what a HYPOTHESIS is. A prediction based upon current information.

And there's plenty in science that would lead someone to think that the stories of the bible are true. Of course, you need to actually know the bible and the accurate translations (serpent, not snake. Big fish, not whale, and God separated the sea, not Moses....) As long as you continue to lie about what the bible says, and to lie about what I believe, you won't get a serious, committed response from me. I have to wonder why people feel like they need to lie, though, if they are so certain they're correct. It seems to me that if you are right, you wouldn't need to lie about the opposition in order to make your point.

But I know you aren't right, and I know you lie, and I know the motivation behind you isn't to speak or find the truth, it's to obfuscate, to ridicule, and to discredit. Not because you're correct, but because you hate. And that hatred comes straight from satan.

Why don't you read the story of the Fall with that in your mind? Satan is the great liar..you know how the serpent got Eve to eat of the Tree of Knowledge? He lied to her. He told her #1, it wouldn't kill her (he was lying) and #2, if she ate it, she would be as powerful as God.

So why do you lie to and about believers in order to get them to set aside their faith?

Serpent and snake are the same thing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serpent_(Bible)

Which again I'm sure you knew that, but it would be better to childishly insult me and make personal attacks rather than come to agreement with me about your beliefs not being based on science.

 

[koshergrl]

I feel the same about you, believe me.

And that's the difference between us. On a subject that calls for thinking, you, instead, feel.

Lol, another lie.

I notice you didn't include the statement I was responding to. A statement of belief. I was responding in kind to a comment that had nothing to do with fact, but was instead just an opinion.

 

[Dragon]

I haven't seen one person, ever, provide evidence that proves that the creation of the world did not occur exactly as the bible says.

Likewise, I haven't seen a shred of evidence that proves that we are descended from anything other than men, or that we mutated from some other creature.

Yes, you have. I have presented evidence for both of those. So have others. You are simply choosing to ignore that evidence.

To repeat: the fossil record shows that the species of plant and animal on earth have changed dramatically over the millions of years that life has existed on this planet. This completely contradicts the account of creation that occurred in the Bible. Even if we do not interpret the word "day" literally, so that (for example) the creation of animals could have occurred millions of years after the creation of plants, it remains the case that the plants and animals we have today are different from the plants and animals that once lived on this planet. So if we have a divine creation, it has to be an ongoing divine creation that happened continuously for millions of years and is still ongoing, and that conflicts with any reasonable interpretation of Genesis.

As for man, the same fossil record shows a progression of increasingly human-life species of primate that separated from the apes several million years ago, with the strongly human-like species H. erectus immediately preceding our own species. This, along with the support for the general idea of evolution, is strong evidence that our species, like all others, evolved from closely related but not identical antecedents.

You may try to pick holes in this evidence if you wish, but to state as you did that there is NO evidence is simply disingenuous.

 

[Dragon]

Lol, another lie.

I notice you didn't include the statement I was responding to. A statement of belief. I was responding in kind to a comment that had nothing to do with fact, but was instead just an opinion.

No, you were responding to a statement of fact, that you chose to twist into a statement of belief through a deliberate misinterpretation of a single word.

I am not the liar here.

 

[koshergrl]

No, but you can't predict what future science will be and then call it science like you're doing.

There's nothing in science that would lead someone to think that later on science will prove that a snake can talk, a man can live in a whale, a man can separate sea with his hands etc etc.

And that's perfectly fine, you believe in a supernatural being (God) who's powers are outside that of which science can measure. So you have beliefs in the supernatural, that is outside the natural science world.

See, this is where you fail. Of course I can "predict". That's what a HYPOTHESIS is. A prediction based upon current information.

And there's plenty in science that would lead someone to think that the stories of the bible are true. Of course, you need to actually know the bible and the accurate translations (serpent, not snake. Big fish, not whale, and God separated the sea, not Moses....) As long as you continue to lie about what the bible says, and to lie about what I believe, you won't get a serious, committed response from me. I have to wonder why people feel like they need to lie, though, if they are so certain they're correct. It seems to me that if you are right, you wouldn't need to lie about the opposition in order to make your point.

But I know you aren't right, and I know you lie, and I know the motivation behind you isn't to speak or find the truth, it's to obfuscate, to ridicule, and to discredit. Not because you're correct, but because you hate. And that hatred comes straight from satan.

Why don't you read the story of the Fall with that in your mind? Satan is the great liar..you know how the serpent got Eve to eat of the Tree of Knowledge? He lied to her. He told her #1, it wouldn't kill her (he was lying) and #2, if she ate it, she would be as powerful as God.

So why do you lie to and about believers in order to get them to set aside their faith?

Serpent and snake are the same thing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serpent_(Bible)

Which again I'm sure you knew that, but it would be better to childishly insult me and make personal attacks rather than come to agreement with me about your beliefs not being based on science.

You know, if you are going to take the intellectual high road, you might want to use something besides wiki.

"

The word in the text which we, following the Septuagint, translate serpent, is נחש nachash; and, according to Buxtorf and others, has three meanings in Scripture.
1. It signifies to view or observe attentively, to divine or use enchantments, because in them the augurs viewed attentively the flight of birds, the entrails of beasts, the course of the clouds, etc.; and under this head it signifies to acquire knowledge by experience.
2. It signifies brass, brazen, and is translated in our Bible, not only brass, but chains, fetters, fetters of brass, and in several places steel; see 2 Samuel 22:35; Job 20:24; Psalm 18:34; and in one place, at least filthiness or fornication, Ezekiel 16:36.
3. It signifies a serpent, but of what kind is not determined. In Job 26:13, it seems to mean the whale or hippopotamus: By his spirit he hath garnished the heavens, his hand hath formed the crooked serpent, נחש ברח nachash bariach: as ברח barach signifies to pass on or pass through, and בריח beriach is used for a bar of a gate or door that passed through rings, etc., the idea of straightness rather than crookedness should be attached to it here; and it is likely that the hippopotamus or sea-horse is intended by it.
In Ecclesiastes 10:11, the creature called nachash, of whatever sort, is compared to the babbler: Surely the serpent (נחש nachash) will bite without enchantment; and a babbler is no better.
In Isaiah 27:1, the crocodile or alligator seems particularly meant by the original: In that day the Lord - shall punish leviathan the piercing serpent, etc. And in Isaiah 65:25, the same creature is meant as in Genesis 3:1, for in the words, And dust shall be the serpent's meat, there is an evident allusion to the text of Moses. In Amos 9:3, the crocodile is evidently intended: Though they be hid in the bottom of the sea, thence will I command the serpent, (הנחש hannachash) and he shall bite them. No person can suppose that any of the snake or serpent kind can be intended here; and we see from the various acceptations of the word, and the different senses which it bears in various places in the sacred writings, that it appears to be a sort of general term confined to no one sense. Hence it will be necessary to examine the root accurately, to see if its ideal meaning will enable us to ascertain the animal intended in the text. We have already seen that נחש nachash signifies to view attentively, to acquire knowledge or experience by attentive observation; so נחשתי nichashti, Genesis 30:27 : I have learned by experience; and this seems to be its most general meaning in the Bible. The original word is by the Septuagint translated οφις, a serpent, not because this was its fixed determinate meaning in the sacred writings, but because it was the best that occurred to the translators: and they do not seem to have given themselves much trouble to understand the meaning of the original, for they have rendered the word as variously as our translators have done, or rather our translators have followed them, as they give nearly the same significations found in the Septuagint: hence we find that οφις is as frequently used by them as serpent, its supposed literal meaning, is used in our version. And the New Testament writers, who seldom quote the Old Testament but from the Septuagint translation, and often do not change even a word in their quotations, copy this version in the use of this word. From the Septuagint therefore we can expect no light, nor indeed from any other of the ancient versions, which are all subsequent to the Septuagint, and some of them actually made from it. In all this uncertainty it is natural for a serious inquirer after truth to look everywhere for information. And in such an inquiry the Arabic may be expected to afford some help, from its great similarity to the Hebrew. A root in this language, very nearly similar to that in the text, seems to cast considerable light on the subject. Chanas or khanasa signifies he departed, drew off, lay hid, seduced, slunk away; from this root come akhnas, khanasa, and khanoos, which all signify an ape, or satyrus, or any creature of the simia or ape genus. It is very remarkable also that from the same root comes khanas, the Devil, which appellative he bears from that meaning of khanasa, he drew off, seduced, etc., because he draws men off from righteousness, seduces them from their obedience to God, etc., etc. See Golius, sub voce. Is it not strange that the devil and the ape should have the same name, derived from the same root, and that root so very similar to the word in the text? But let us return and consider what is said of the creature in question. Now the nachash was more subtle, ערום arum, more wise, cunning, or prudent, than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. In this account we find,
1. That whatever this nachash was, he stood at the head of all inferior animals for wisdom and understanding.
2. That he walked erect, for this is necessarily implied in his punishment - on thy belly (i.e., on all fours) shalt thou go.
3. That he was endued with the gift of speech, for a conversation is here related between him and the woman.
4. That he was also endued with the gift of reason, for we find him reasoning and disputing with Eve.
5. That these things were common to this creature, the woman no doubt having often seen him walk erect, talk, and reason, and therefore she testifies no kind of surprise when he accosts her in the language related in the text; and indeed from the manner in which this is introduced it appears to be only a part of a conversation that had passed between them on the occasion: Yea, hath God said, etc.
Had this creature never been known to speak before his addressing the woman at this time and on this subject, it could not have failed to excite her surprise, and to have filled her with caution, though from the purity and innocence of her nature she might have been incapable of being affected with fear. Now I apprehend that none of these things can be spoken of a serpent of any species. 1. None of them ever did or ever can walk erect. The tales we have had of two-footed and four-footed serpents are justly exploded by every judicious naturalist, and are utterly unworthy of credit. The very name serpent comes from serpo, to creep, and therefore to such it could be neither curse nor punishment to go on their bellies, i.e., to creep on, as they had done from their creation, and must do while their race endures."

Genesis 3:1 Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, "Did God really say, 'You must not eat from any tree in the garden'?"

 

[koshergrl]

The parting of the Red Sea...perfectly reasonable:

"scientists have developed a computer simulation that offers an alternative, less miraculous explanation. Experts at the National Center for Atmospheric Research are hypothesizing that seven hours of 60 mph winds could have exposed miles of mud flats in the Red Sea, allowing the Chosen Ones to escape. "

Did Moses really part the Red Sea? - The Week

God works the way God works. Ultimately, it just comes down to whether or not you think everything is random . What a remarkable coincidence that a group of people who believed they had God in their midst, who were being pursued by a superior army, should benefit from *strong winds* that allowed them to escape and resulted in the conquest of the hostile troops...but hey, that's where your faith leads you. Mine takes me a different route. I believe the Bible.

 

[Youwerecreated]

I'll ask again, why do you brag about your degree from Arizona when Arizona teaches the exact opposite of your views?


Wouldn't it be better to brag about how many science denying Bible blogs you've read? At least they agree with you.

Wait just a second do you believe that the science classes I took only focused on the faulty theory of macroevolution ?

No I don't, and I didn't say anything remotely similar to that. But you're bragging about a degree from a university that you think does the devil's work in teaching evolution.

Very odd.

Devils work yes he is using religion as well but I don't hate religous people. I reject bad religion just as much as I reject bad science.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Of course I'm admitting the chimp isn't our nearest ancestor, no one who takes science seriously says they are. I'm assuming you read that in one of your Bible blogs.

If you care to educate yourself on what science actually says about human evolution and our ancestors analyze this website. And don't lazily look at it and give me the wikipedia cop out, all their sources are clearly referenced if you take issue with any of their information.

Human evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And if you actually want to educate yourself on what science says about humans and chimps DNA, read here.

Chimps, Humans 96 Percent the Same, Gene Study Finds

No you aren't using my beliefs against me. You're using strawmen Bible blog arguments against me, which is exactly why when we debate and I ask you for proof of something you give me a science website rather than a Bible blog.

Sorry pal, I know your theory well,I can't help it you can't detect sarcasm.

You need to lighten up and have fun with this, but most importantly learn something.

Yeah, you were being sarcastic when you repeatedly state that scientists say chimps are our nearest ancestor, you should take the commandment about lying more seriously.

Believe me I do have fun with it. In the real world people don't say T-Rex mooed and ate grass and that a pair of elephants can fit in a shoebox. I only get that from you.

They say we are related to chimps because of DNA similarity,how many times must I say this before you understand whats being said ? I am asking you what did humans evolve from their DNA must be much closer then the chimp by your reasoning.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Sorry pal, I know your theory well,I can't help it you can't detect sarcasm.

You need to lighten up and have fun with this, but most importantly learn something.

Yeah, you were being sarcastic when you repeatedly state that scientists say chimps are our nearest ancestor, you should take the commandment about lying more seriously.

Believe me I do have fun with it. In the real world people don't say T-Rex mooed and ate grass and that a pair of elephants can fit in a shoebox. I only get that from you.

They say we are related to chimps because of DNA similarity,how many times must I say this before you understand whats being said ? I am asking you what did humans evolve from their DNA must be much closer then the chimp by your reasoning.

Another lie, you said science says chimps are our ancestors, which is either flat out ignorance or a lie. I think it's ignorance.

I've given you links, and you ignored them. So please stop asking me for links. The links I provide have the scientific answers, so if you actually want a scientific answer to your question (which you don't) go back and read the links.

 

[Youwerecreated]

So you're admitting the chimp is not our nearest ancestor then what is ?

Homo erectus

This species is extinct now, but is believed to be our nearest ancestor.

How do you know this ? can you perform a DNA test on this creature ?

Is this creature human or an apelike creature ?

Or is it both human and ape ?

 

[Dr.Drock]

The parting of the Red Sea...perfectly reasonable:

"scientists have developed a computer simulation that offers an alternative, less miraculous explanation. Experts at the National Center for Atmospheric Research are hypothesizing that seven hours of 60 mph winds could have exposed miles of mud flats in the Red Sea, allowing the Chosen Ones to escape. "

Did Moses really part the Red Sea? - The Week

God works the way God works. Ultimately, it just comes down to whether or not you think everything is random . What a remarkable coincidence that a group of people who believed they had God in their midst, who were being pursued by a superior army, should benefit from *strong winds* that allowed them to escape and resulted in the conquest of the hostile troops...but hey, that's where your faith leads you. Mine takes me a different route. I believe the Bible.

You said your God separated the sea, that's not what your link says.

Which story are you going with?

 

[Youwerecreated]

As in, when I look up and the sky is full of dark clouds, and the wind is blowing hard, I might say, "I believe it's going to rain."

As in, when election day approached in 2008, and I looked at the polls for the candidates, I said, "I believe Obama's going to win."

As in, the similarity in phenotype between the species H. erectus and H. sapiens, combined with the dating of the emergence and extinction of erectus, show that it was very likely to have been the immediate evolutionary ancestor of H. sapiens. But this is not absolutely certain, so "is believed to be" is more appropriate language than simply "is."



No, it's all about not claiming 100% certainty when one is only 99% certain.

No, I'm 100 percent certain.

You aren't, and that's fine. But kindly refrain from pretending or trying to convince me that since you're not 100 percent committed to your premise, I, likewise, cannot possibly be committed to my premise. Or that because I AM 100 percent committed to my premise, that somehow makes me stupid or my premise less valid than your own.

That's just arrogance. Combined with ignorance.

It's fine if she's 100% certain, it's just not based on anything having to do with science.

So what is the evidence that makes you believe homo erectus is what humans evolved from ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

I got As in college biology, anthropology and in critical thinking.

You were saying?

Then I am saying you are not applying them.

And I am saying you are wrong.

They have never gotten it,that creationist have a model just like evolutionist.

What they refuse to believe that men of science believe in God and creation.